Broken hand or not, you just can't keep someone with strong opinions quiet, though it will keep this post pretty short. This post is somewhat by request.
A lot of criticism has been leveled at Barack about his inexperience and naivety when it comes to foreign policy. However while the senator does have less experience than either McCain or Clinton, his judgment has proven so far to be superior in my opinion. Look at what he said about the Iraq war back in 2002 before it began. He has also taken criticism for saying that he would use unilateral strikes against targets within Pakistan, especially from members of the Bush administration including the president himself. However that same administration just recently launched that exact kind of attack against a high level Al Qaeda target within Pakistan.* A third criticism often leveled against senator Obama is over remarks he made that he would be willing to meet with leaders of Iran, and other states that the US has deemed bad actors. First of all, the senator never said he would be willing to personally visit any heads of state without first going through the process of opening lines of communication and negotiation. Secondly, that is exactly the kind of communication we need with other countries during times of war to avoid misunderstandings that could lead to disaster and to open up the possibility of peace. During the cold war the US talked to Russia all the time. It was actual face to face talks that led to the brokering of a deal with North Korea. More communication is always a positive step.
*- link goes to a site which links to an unavailable msnbc article which links to a Washington post article which you have to register to see. Sorry that reference is such a pain in the ass but I'm sure you can find more info on it online if you'd like.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Another hiatus...
I broke my finger at a tournament over the weekend so for the next two weeks probably no posts. This alone was hard enough with only one working typing hand. And please, no typing with one hand jokes.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Story Time!!!
This is a true retelling of events that happened to the brother of a close friend of mine, reprinted here with his permission. In the interest of disclosure, I have edited out a small part of the story to avoid the possibility of offending anyone, and that part is marked. Also, the names of the people and locations have been changed. I'm pretty sure that wasn't necessary, but I did it anyways since I'm not sure the level of anonymity he would have preferred. The changes are in bold. The rest of the story is in it's entirety, his. I'm posting it because, well, it's hilarious. This guy is a damned good writer. Enjoy
"So as for the story-
Over the past couple of weeks, our shows exploded. Last time we played we had the bar over capacity by 8pm. That's 500+ people. Even the stairs going up to the mezzanine were packed. You seriously couldn't move. This has never happened before in the history of the bar.
I am pleased.
One of the 500+ people in attendance happens to be a local reporter from "Fake Newspaper." Within the week, we had a ½ page article on us- page 3. Mike brought it to my attention Thursday night. The exact words out of my mouth were "This is terribly great." It's publicity, but the moron calls it a live power hour in the title, gives the name of the bar and our names as well. We are instant exiled heroes, just add press and watch us grow!
By Friday morning, I receive a call while in class. The mayor of Fakeville or someone high up in his cabinet would like to speak with both us and the bar management. I have to tell my professor the story quickly so it can count as an "emergency absence" (this being the coolest emergency note ever) and run to the bar to attend this impromptu meeting. So I get there and Mike and the manager are just sitting there with some dude in a suit. This dick of a puritan shoots me the look from hell as I am unshaved and unshowered and look quite hungover from being up all night writing my 3rd six page paper of the week. He introduces himself and proceeds to tell us how what were doing is wrong and dangerous to the student body. The manager and mike don't say a damn word. They sit there and let this jerk-store bend them over a table. Finally, I step in.
I must warn you: while the following may seem like melodrama, it is in its entirety completely true and unexaggerated. I had been sitting there biting my tongue for roughly five or so minutes while this asshole rambled on. Finally I could take no more. I excuse myself and interrupt him. I proceeded to tell him that at no time did the bar, mike or I EVER advertise or condone this so-called "power hour." In fact, we never even advertised our shows or mentioned it onstage. We simply played 60 songs in 60 minutes and left the decision up to the crowd. What they choose to do was there prerogative. It was all word of mouth. His retort was "The city doesn't support binge drinking in any form." My reply was neither do we, but if a patron chooses to come to a bar and get intoxicated, as long as he is not a danger to himself or others, that is his choice as a consenting adult and it is the individual bar staff's decision to refuse the patron service (which he knows in a college town takes quite a bit). At this point I order a pint, right in front of this asshole, just to piss him off. Keep in mind that it is barely past 12pm and the bar had just opened. He is visibly uncomfortable with this gesture, but the kicker comes when he tells us that the city would prefer that we not play live anymore.
I am less than pleased.
I tell him straight to his face that he has no solid grounds to keep us from playing live as long as we abide by Fakesville city ordinances which we have always done. At this point Mike and the manager are utterly worthless to our cause- *Edit* "They had no idea what kind of shit was about to go down" (Bob Dylan); they are deer in the headlights of this guy's Mack truck. The prospect of the bright beams from city hall benumbs them, thus preventing them from articulating a successful argument. I tell this guy "we always have the best interest of the patrons and university in mind, but if they try and shut down live music at the bar, technically we could sue the city for discrimination because this would put the bar at a disadvantage to their competitors through no fault of their own. If [he] shuts us down, there can't be any live music within campustown. Either way all [he is] going to succeed in doing is push it underground to parties where it cannot be responsibly regulated." Also, I remind him that all his information is completely unreliable and thus his argument unfounded. Our article comes in the same periodical that advertises musical condoms and Photoshops pictures of people's faces on animal's genitalia; a less than reputable source. At this point I take a very large pull of my beer, emptying roughly ¼ of its contents. This guy is defeated and he knows it.
I am Achilles to his Hector.
He responds with some bullshit excuse for needing to look into the matter further and parts with "we'll be keeping an eye on the matter over the coming weeks." I neither stand nor shake his hand as he leaves, but instead proceed to pinch my eye in an Uncle Rocco-esque manner while maintaining an ear to ear smirk and sipping on my beer (which I didn't even want, I ordered it simply to piss him off). The invisible man in the suit walks out of the bar with his tail between his legs.
I drag his lifeless corpse around the gates of Troy for all to see.
In doing so, I instantly become a hero to the entire crew of the bar and its management and get asked to go on the employee bar crawl with a free bar tab compliments of the staff.
All this debacle succeeded in doing was creating more publicity for our already growing fan base. I said it before and I'll say it again: "Despite my best efforts, we are becoming successful." While I'm not dumb and harbor no delusions of grandure, I still look out for my best interest before that of the bar or anyone else. So, we're going to give the 60 in 60 shows a rest for a while. Maybe after generic event we'll do it again, but we're probably going to get shut down. My view is that since we're going to get shut down anyway, we may as well go down swinging and get the beer garden open, get about 600 people out there and do 100 songs in as many minutes. If they try and shut that down they are going to have a horde of drunk frat guys on their hands. Thats the spirit that beat the Japanese!!"
"So as for the story-
Over the past couple of weeks, our shows exploded. Last time we played we had the bar over capacity by 8pm. That's 500+ people. Even the stairs going up to the mezzanine were packed. You seriously couldn't move. This has never happened before in the history of the bar.
I am pleased.
One of the 500+ people in attendance happens to be a local reporter from "Fake Newspaper." Within the week, we had a ½ page article on us- page 3. Mike brought it to my attention Thursday night. The exact words out of my mouth were "This is terribly great." It's publicity, but the moron calls it a live power hour in the title, gives the name of the bar and our names as well. We are instant exiled heroes, just add press and watch us grow!
By Friday morning, I receive a call while in class. The mayor of Fakeville or someone high up in his cabinet would like to speak with both us and the bar management. I have to tell my professor the story quickly so it can count as an "emergency absence" (this being the coolest emergency note ever) and run to the bar to attend this impromptu meeting. So I get there and Mike and the manager are just sitting there with some dude in a suit. This dick of a puritan shoots me the look from hell as I am unshaved and unshowered and look quite hungover from being up all night writing my 3rd six page paper of the week. He introduces himself and proceeds to tell us how what were doing is wrong and dangerous to the student body. The manager and mike don't say a damn word. They sit there and let this jerk-store bend them over a table. Finally, I step in.
I must warn you: while the following may seem like melodrama, it is in its entirety completely true and unexaggerated. I had been sitting there biting my tongue for roughly five or so minutes while this asshole rambled on. Finally I could take no more. I excuse myself and interrupt him. I proceeded to tell him that at no time did the bar, mike or I EVER advertise or condone this so-called "power hour." In fact, we never even advertised our shows or mentioned it onstage. We simply played 60 songs in 60 minutes and left the decision up to the crowd. What they choose to do was there prerogative. It was all word of mouth. His retort was "The city doesn't support binge drinking in any form." My reply was neither do we, but if a patron chooses to come to a bar and get intoxicated, as long as he is not a danger to himself or others, that is his choice as a consenting adult and it is the individual bar staff's decision to refuse the patron service (which he knows in a college town takes quite a bit). At this point I order a pint, right in front of this asshole, just to piss him off. Keep in mind that it is barely past 12pm and the bar had just opened. He is visibly uncomfortable with this gesture, but the kicker comes when he tells us that the city would prefer that we not play live anymore.
I am less than pleased.
I tell him straight to his face that he has no solid grounds to keep us from playing live as long as we abide by Fakesville city ordinances which we have always done. At this point Mike and the manager are utterly worthless to our cause- *Edit* "They had no idea what kind of shit was about to go down" (Bob Dylan); they are deer in the headlights of this guy's Mack truck. The prospect of the bright beams from city hall benumbs them, thus preventing them from articulating a successful argument. I tell this guy "we always have the best interest of the patrons and university in mind, but if they try and shut down live music at the bar, technically we could sue the city for discrimination because this would put the bar at a disadvantage to their competitors through no fault of their own. If [he] shuts us down, there can't be any live music within campustown. Either way all [he is] going to succeed in doing is push it underground to parties where it cannot be responsibly regulated." Also, I remind him that all his information is completely unreliable and thus his argument unfounded. Our article comes in the same periodical that advertises musical condoms and Photoshops pictures of people's faces on animal's genitalia; a less than reputable source. At this point I take a very large pull of my beer, emptying roughly ¼ of its contents. This guy is defeated and he knows it.
I am Achilles to his Hector.
He responds with some bullshit excuse for needing to look into the matter further and parts with "we'll be keeping an eye on the matter over the coming weeks." I neither stand nor shake his hand as he leaves, but instead proceed to pinch my eye in an Uncle Rocco-esque manner while maintaining an ear to ear smirk and sipping on my beer (which I didn't even want, I ordered it simply to piss him off). The invisible man in the suit walks out of the bar with his tail between his legs.
I drag his lifeless corpse around the gates of Troy for all to see.
In doing so, I instantly become a hero to the entire crew of the bar and its management and get asked to go on the employee bar crawl with a free bar tab compliments of the staff.
All this debacle succeeded in doing was creating more publicity for our already growing fan base. I said it before and I'll say it again: "Despite my best efforts, we are becoming successful." While I'm not dumb and harbor no delusions of grandure, I still look out for my best interest before that of the bar or anyone else. So, we're going to give the 60 in 60 shows a rest for a while. Maybe after generic event we'll do it again, but we're probably going to get shut down. My view is that since we're going to get shut down anyway, we may as well go down swinging and get the beer garden open, get about 600 people out there and do 100 songs in as many minutes. If they try and shut that down they are going to have a horde of drunk frat guys on their hands. Thats the spirit that beat the Japanese!!"
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
I did not know this, but now find it hilarious
From the wikipedia entry on Manuel Noriega:
"Noriega fled during the attack and a manhunt ensued. He finally turned up in the Apostolic Nunciature, the Holy See's embassy in Panama, where he had taken refuge. U.S. troops set up a perimeter outside this building, as any direct action on the embassy itself would have violated the customs of international law (and perhaps treaties to which the U.S. was a party at the time as well). The troops guarding it used psychological warfare, attempting to force him out by playing hard rock music and The Howard Stern Show outside the residence.[15] Reportedly the song "Panama" by Van Halen was played repeatedly.
The Vatican complained to President Bush because of this and U.S. troops stopped the noise. After a demonstration a few days later by thousands of Panamanians demanding he stand trial for human rights violations, Noriega surrendered on January 3, 1990."
I now understand more fully the pop culture references surrounding that song, which was originally written about a car. Also, I kinda like that song.
"Noriega fled during the attack and a manhunt ensued. He finally turned up in the Apostolic Nunciature, the Holy See's embassy in Panama, where he had taken refuge. U.S. troops set up a perimeter outside this building, as any direct action on the embassy itself would have violated the customs of international law (and perhaps treaties to which the U.S. was a party at the time as well). The troops guarding it used psychological warfare, attempting to force him out by playing hard rock music and The Howard Stern Show outside the residence.[15] Reportedly the song "Panama" by Van Halen was played repeatedly.
The Vatican complained to President Bush because of this and U.S. troops stopped the noise. After a demonstration a few days later by thousands of Panamanians demanding he stand trial for human rights violations, Noriega surrendered on January 3, 1990."
I now understand more fully the pop culture references surrounding that song, which was originally written about a car. Also, I kinda like that song.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Heroes #2
I did a post titled "Heroes" way back in July that probably no one remembers. It never became a recurring segment but something came along and I needed to bring it back.
http://www.samueladams.com/promotions/HopSharing/Default.aspx
Sam Adams, an American brewing company with a historic tradition, a great line of beers, and a great American attitude. For saving this years crop of microbrewed beers, there can be no amount of thanks we can give you that would be fitting. Here's to you Sam Adams, truly the heroes of the week.
http://www.samueladams.com/promotions/HopSharing/Default.aspx
Sam Adams, an American brewing company with a historic tradition, a great line of beers, and a great American attitude. For saving this years crop of microbrewed beers, there can be no amount of thanks we can give you that would be fitting. Here's to you Sam Adams, truly the heroes of the week.
Interpreting the 2nd amendment
Here
Here
Yet another tragedy that could have been avoided. This guy was obviously disturbed, obviously had mental problems, and in hindsight he should have been provided better care. The immediate question that hasn't been solved in the wake of Columbine, in the wake of Virginia Tech, or is likely to be solved in the wake of this shooting either is: Just what the fuck are we gonna do to keep this from happening again? From the gun advocate side people claim that arming more people will prevent a shooter from being able to kill as many people because armed citizens will be able to shoot back. Some people suggest closing off campuses more to prevent people with guns from getting into school buildings. Others suggest banning violent video games, or violent movies, or violence in popular culture all together.
Each suggested answer is a means towards an end designed to reduce these events.
1 - ARM MORE LAWFUL CITIZENS. THE END RESULT BEING, THEORETICALLY, THAT WHEN A GUNMAN ATTACKS, HE'LL BE STOPPED BEFORE HE CAN DO TOO MUCH DAMAGE. Sure, this would probably reduce the amount of people killed in these kinds of attacks. It also might discourage people from comitting them, knowing they're likely to get shot at themselves. However people that commit these crimes are intent on killing themselves anyways, how discouraged would they be by that? They know they're likely to face armed police in the end already. So while this might reduce the amount of people killed, it wouldn't necessarily reduce the frequency of the attacks. Also, having more people carrying around guns would increase the frequency of guns being used in crimes. A fight that normally might end up with a few loosed teeth and black eyes would have the potential to turn deadly. Add alcohol to the equation on a college campus, and it's hard to imagine that the overall result would be less dead or injured.
2 - LOCK DOWN COLLEGE CAMPUSES. We already live in a much less free society than we used to. Schools, airports, office buildings, all have had security increased drastically due to events like these. (In the case of airports, it's of course for other reasons as well) Still, events like this seem to be on the rise. It's not that more violent events are occuring, it's that the level of devastation per event is increasing drastically. I don't think that increased security is a bad idea, unlike idea number 1. Still it's an idea that I don't like. I hate living in a frightened, reactionary society, and I imagine most other people feel the same way. Still, this idea doesn't stop events from occuring as much as it does keep them from occuring in any specific place. The increase in security at schools and offices has led to the increase in shooting occuring at other public places like malls.
3 - THE INCREASE IN VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES, MOVIES, AND ON TV IS CORRELATED TO THE INCREASE IN THESE TYPES OF EVENTS. ALSO THE PEOPLE WHO COMMIT THESE ATTROCITIES ARE OFTEN FANS OF, OR ARE OBSESSED WITH THESE PRODUCTS. Some people feel that reducing or banning such violent entertainment would reduce these occurances, and others believe that they are the direct cause. I don't disagree that the level of violence in our popular culture has gotten to an unacceptable level. What I do disagree with is that it is the cause. The cause is people who are disturbed, who need help, who need to be watched out for. This doesn't mean that violent culture does not nurture them in the wrong direction, but it's difficult if not impossible to imply causation. I personally would hate to see games like GTA become banned, I find them alot of fun. Still it's disturbing the sadistic opportunities provided in those kinds of games. I've never found it the least bit entertaining to drive around mowing down pedestrians in a game like that, but some people do, and those impulses maybe shouldn't be nurtured. I'm not a psychologist, so I couldn't tell you whether providing those imaginary opportunites nurtures a sadistic desire or if it provides a consequence-free environtment to vent hurtful impulses. What I do know is that banning violence in entertainment is not the sure way to prevent these occurances.
So then what do we do about this problem? First of all as I said earlier I think it's important to take the issue of mental health seriously. I know it's difficult to be worried about someone close to you, or even about someone you don't know that well, and to try to take action about it. But we need to lose the stigma surrounding it so that people are more comfortable getting help if and when they need it. That aside, there's something quicker and easier we can do to completely solve the devastating scope of these incidents.
STOP SELLING GUNS THAT ARE ONLY USEFUL FOR KILLING PEOPLE! At Virginia Tech, the shooter had extended magazines that allowed him to get off a ridiculous amount of shots before he was stopped. In the NIU case, the shooter had extended magazines that allowed him to hold 33 bullets in each magazine. In both cases, the shooters ordered part of their stockpile from the same website, which shipped them to them! There is no fucking reason that a person needs this kind of weapon. Guns are made for, as I can see it, three reasons. Hunting, self-defense, and straight up fucking murdering people. I'm not for making all guns illegal. I believe that the 2nd ammendment give you the right to own a rifle to keep King George out of your front garden. I also believe that it gives people the right to defend your homes. I also believe people have the right to hunt. That only, however, covers shotguns, hunting rifles, and small caliber, small magazine handguns. There is no lawful reason I can concieve that a person should need any other weapon. Anything other than one of these weapons should be made illegal as soon as fucking possible. Everything other than one of these weapons should be made illegal to own, operate, sell, or to manufacture for sale to any other source than military or law enforcement. Sure this doesn't solve the problem completely, but it will certainly reduce the amount of casualties.
There is another simple fix that can help reduce the number of these events, but this post is already pretty long, and I get the sense that in my rambling I may have already lost the coherence I intended, so I'll save that for now.
Here
Yet another tragedy that could have been avoided. This guy was obviously disturbed, obviously had mental problems, and in hindsight he should have been provided better care. The immediate question that hasn't been solved in the wake of Columbine, in the wake of Virginia Tech, or is likely to be solved in the wake of this shooting either is: Just what the fuck are we gonna do to keep this from happening again? From the gun advocate side people claim that arming more people will prevent a shooter from being able to kill as many people because armed citizens will be able to shoot back. Some people suggest closing off campuses more to prevent people with guns from getting into school buildings. Others suggest banning violent video games, or violent movies, or violence in popular culture all together.
Each suggested answer is a means towards an end designed to reduce these events.
1 - ARM MORE LAWFUL CITIZENS. THE END RESULT BEING, THEORETICALLY, THAT WHEN A GUNMAN ATTACKS, HE'LL BE STOPPED BEFORE HE CAN DO TOO MUCH DAMAGE. Sure, this would probably reduce the amount of people killed in these kinds of attacks. It also might discourage people from comitting them, knowing they're likely to get shot at themselves. However people that commit these crimes are intent on killing themselves anyways, how discouraged would they be by that? They know they're likely to face armed police in the end already. So while this might reduce the amount of people killed, it wouldn't necessarily reduce the frequency of the attacks. Also, having more people carrying around guns would increase the frequency of guns being used in crimes. A fight that normally might end up with a few loosed teeth and black eyes would have the potential to turn deadly. Add alcohol to the equation on a college campus, and it's hard to imagine that the overall result would be less dead or injured.
2 - LOCK DOWN COLLEGE CAMPUSES. We already live in a much less free society than we used to. Schools, airports, office buildings, all have had security increased drastically due to events like these. (In the case of airports, it's of course for other reasons as well) Still, events like this seem to be on the rise. It's not that more violent events are occuring, it's that the level of devastation per event is increasing drastically. I don't think that increased security is a bad idea, unlike idea number 1. Still it's an idea that I don't like. I hate living in a frightened, reactionary society, and I imagine most other people feel the same way. Still, this idea doesn't stop events from occuring as much as it does keep them from occuring in any specific place. The increase in security at schools and offices has led to the increase in shooting occuring at other public places like malls.
3 - THE INCREASE IN VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES, MOVIES, AND ON TV IS CORRELATED TO THE INCREASE IN THESE TYPES OF EVENTS. ALSO THE PEOPLE WHO COMMIT THESE ATTROCITIES ARE OFTEN FANS OF, OR ARE OBSESSED WITH THESE PRODUCTS. Some people feel that reducing or banning such violent entertainment would reduce these occurances, and others believe that they are the direct cause. I don't disagree that the level of violence in our popular culture has gotten to an unacceptable level. What I do disagree with is that it is the cause. The cause is people who are disturbed, who need help, who need to be watched out for. This doesn't mean that violent culture does not nurture them in the wrong direction, but it's difficult if not impossible to imply causation. I personally would hate to see games like GTA become banned, I find them alot of fun. Still it's disturbing the sadistic opportunities provided in those kinds of games. I've never found it the least bit entertaining to drive around mowing down pedestrians in a game like that, but some people do, and those impulses maybe shouldn't be nurtured. I'm not a psychologist, so I couldn't tell you whether providing those imaginary opportunites nurtures a sadistic desire or if it provides a consequence-free environtment to vent hurtful impulses. What I do know is that banning violence in entertainment is not the sure way to prevent these occurances.
So then what do we do about this problem? First of all as I said earlier I think it's important to take the issue of mental health seriously. I know it's difficult to be worried about someone close to you, or even about someone you don't know that well, and to try to take action about it. But we need to lose the stigma surrounding it so that people are more comfortable getting help if and when they need it. That aside, there's something quicker and easier we can do to completely solve the devastating scope of these incidents.
STOP SELLING GUNS THAT ARE ONLY USEFUL FOR KILLING PEOPLE! At Virginia Tech, the shooter had extended magazines that allowed him to get off a ridiculous amount of shots before he was stopped. In the NIU case, the shooter had extended magazines that allowed him to hold 33 bullets in each magazine. In both cases, the shooters ordered part of their stockpile from the same website, which shipped them to them! There is no fucking reason that a person needs this kind of weapon. Guns are made for, as I can see it, three reasons. Hunting, self-defense, and straight up fucking murdering people. I'm not for making all guns illegal. I believe that the 2nd ammendment give you the right to own a rifle to keep King George out of your front garden. I also believe that it gives people the right to defend your homes. I also believe people have the right to hunt. That only, however, covers shotguns, hunting rifles, and small caliber, small magazine handguns. There is no lawful reason I can concieve that a person should need any other weapon. Anything other than one of these weapons should be made illegal as soon as fucking possible. Everything other than one of these weapons should be made illegal to own, operate, sell, or to manufacture for sale to any other source than military or law enforcement. Sure this doesn't solve the problem completely, but it will certainly reduce the amount of casualties.
There is another simple fix that can help reduce the number of these events, but this post is already pretty long, and I get the sense that in my rambling I may have already lost the coherence I intended, so I'll save that for now.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Am I wrong about delegate democracy?
This is from an e-mail I wrote in response to THIS PETITION
"I don't know about this. While I do agree that the delegates should follow the electorate, I don't think that there's anything actually wrong with them not doing so. The primary process isn't designed as an election. The process is for the democratic party to decide on their nominee, and since the democratic party isn't actually a government entity it doesn't make sense that it should be force to follow the results of an election it hasn't agreed to bind itself too. The superdelegate situation originally emerged because the party was worried that it might need to have a say in the result of a contested primary election process (which itself only began in the early '50s), and they might need to make an "executive decision" on who the candidate should be. When you consider that in many states you don't have to be a registered democrat to even vote in the democratic primaries, it doesn't make much sense to me that the democratic party should then be forced to follow the results of that primary. I still agree that they should honor the results of the elections with ALL of the delegates, but I disagree with the premise that it would be the fair democratic thing for them to do. I also don't feel that they should feel obligated to do so."
I'm just wondering, am I wrong about this?
"I don't know about this. While I do agree that the delegates should follow the electorate, I don't think that there's anything actually wrong with them not doing so. The primary process isn't designed as an election. The process is for the democratic party to decide on their nominee, and since the democratic party isn't actually a government entity it doesn't make sense that it should be force to follow the results of an election it hasn't agreed to bind itself too. The superdelegate situation originally emerged because the party was worried that it might need to have a say in the result of a contested primary election process (which itself only began in the early '50s), and they might need to make an "executive decision" on who the candidate should be. When you consider that in many states you don't have to be a registered democrat to even vote in the democratic primaries, it doesn't make much sense to me that the democratic party should then be forced to follow the results of that primary. I still agree that they should honor the results of the elections with ALL of the delegates, but I disagree with the premise that it would be the fair democratic thing for them to do. I also don't feel that they should feel obligated to do so."
I'm just wondering, am I wrong about this?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Who's got the arm in 2008?
Every spring training is full of questions for the coming season, and this one is no different for the cubs. Who are their starting pitchers going to be? Will Zambrano pitch on opening day or will he cede the responsibility to Ted Lilly on what is typically his worst pitching day of the year? Will Felix Pie get his bat going and work out in center field? How will Fukadome adjust to US baseball?
I could keep on goin' but there's one question that I've been focusing on pretty intently and it's the one that I think is most open to debate and opinion. Who is going to be the closer in 2008?
The closer might change during the year so a better question might be "who will start the season as the closer?", but what I'm more concerned with is who people think would be the best closer for 2008. The way I see it, you have three candidates who pitch in slightly different styles, but are close to the same type of pitcher. Of the three Howry is the oldest and by necessity the craftiest. He still throws his share of strikeouts and will pitch to contact, but he's more able to work counts and get outs using his infield. Marmol is somewhat opposite in that he's a young pitcher with a young arm who can strike players out with ease but also throws a higher percentage of strikes than you might expect from a strikeout pitcher. Wood is in a position where he might be midway between the two in style. He used to be a dominant strikeout pitcher but after all the surgeries and time on the DL and hot tubs he's fallen out of, he's not the same pitcher he used to be. We saw last year that he can still be dominant on occasion, but he no longer can rely on pure throwing power to get outs.
To be honest, I'm not sure who I think would be the best. I'd love to see Wood be able to come back and be a hero in Chicago again. He has always tried to live up to what he feels is his obligation to the team and the city that gave him his chance, and has accepted less money and lesser roles throughout the time he was rehabbing. But I'm not sure that he would be best for the role. I'm waiting to see how things play out but what I expect will happen is that Marmol will start to be groomed for the role in the hopes that he will be the teams closer for a while to come.
So what do you guys think? Would you go with the experience, the youth, or the past success...the way in the the past success?
I could keep on goin' but there's one question that I've been focusing on pretty intently and it's the one that I think is most open to debate and opinion. Who is going to be the closer in 2008?
The closer might change during the year so a better question might be "who will start the season as the closer?", but what I'm more concerned with is who people think would be the best closer for 2008. The way I see it, you have three candidates who pitch in slightly different styles, but are close to the same type of pitcher. Of the three Howry is the oldest and by necessity the craftiest. He still throws his share of strikeouts and will pitch to contact, but he's more able to work counts and get outs using his infield. Marmol is somewhat opposite in that he's a young pitcher with a young arm who can strike players out with ease but also throws a higher percentage of strikes than you might expect from a strikeout pitcher. Wood is in a position where he might be midway between the two in style. He used to be a dominant strikeout pitcher but after all the surgeries and time on the DL and hot tubs he's fallen out of, he's not the same pitcher he used to be. We saw last year that he can still be dominant on occasion, but he no longer can rely on pure throwing power to get outs.
To be honest, I'm not sure who I think would be the best. I'd love to see Wood be able to come back and be a hero in Chicago again. He has always tried to live up to what he feels is his obligation to the team and the city that gave him his chance, and has accepted less money and lesser roles throughout the time he was rehabbing. But I'm not sure that he would be best for the role. I'm waiting to see how things play out but what I expect will happen is that Marmol will start to be groomed for the role in the hopes that he will be the teams closer for a while to come.
So what do you guys think? Would you go with the experience, the youth, or the past success...the way in the the past success?
Sunday, February 10, 2008
In the words of Jon Stewart, "Fuck you!"
Jon Stewart on Mitt Romney dropping from the race.
Fuckin' right Jon. It's been an interesting conflict in my mind lately. I wanted so much for Romney to succeed in the republican primaries. I happen to think that he's incredibly beatable in the general election. Yet at the same time I could hardly contain my contempt for that greasy, power-hungry son of a bitch. It amazes me the extent that he was able to fool conservative voters into believing in him. That flip-floppy cunt has spent his entire political career saying anything and everything to get ahead, and his supporters had the fucking gall to criticize Hillary Clinton for the same thing. Don't get me wrong, I think that it's also true about Hillary to a much, much lesser extent. But when I decide who I want to be president I decide who I think would be best for the country. There is no other criterion. In that respect I would give all worldly possessions I own or ever will own if it would ensure that Hillary Clinton would win a race against Mike Huckabee. While she is a calculating politician and he seems more unafraid to not compromise his principles, his principles are FUCKING INSANE and Hillary's "calculations" have landed on something that I often find myself in agreement with.
This doesn't mean that I want Hillary to be president. There is still something to be said about a candidate that both shares your values and had the backbone and principles to stand up for them, and for my money there hasn't been a candidate that better fits that mold since Al Gore. Until of course Obama came along. Sure Al Gore lost, but Obama also has the ability to not appear robot-like in person, so he's got that going for him.
Ok, I'm off point. I'll regroup. I fucking hate Romney. I could get into a giant protracted rant about what an asshole hypocrite he is, but with him dropping out of the race it isn't relevant any longer. I'll just say that the guy claimed he was the true conservative in this year's primaries, yet when he ran for governor of Massachusetts he claimed to be to the left of Ted Kennedy. What I want to address is the ridiculous statement that he made.* The part where he said that he doesn't want his campaign to be part of a surrender to terror. While he just said that so that he could further ingratiate himself with the conservative base that he figures he'll depend on for his next power-grab, I'm still sick of this particular attack on liberals. Fuck you Mitt Romney. Fuck you for exploiting people and turning them against their fellow Americans to advance your political career. Fuck you for implying that you, or conservatives you claim to think like, care about the future of this country any more than I do. Fuck you for claiming that I want anything good to ever happen to any of the damnable mother-fuckers that attack our troops, that terrorize innocent Iraqis, that take the lives of innocent civilians world-wide. Fuck you for basically equating MY ambitions to theirs. Fuck you for thinking that you deserve the respect that you have never done the hard work to earn. Fuck you even for taking advantage of conservatives, who you don't value any more than their potential to gain you more power. Fuck you for making us so angry at one another.
I don't want for the democrats to have to go up against John McCain in the general election. He can get the independent vote. People who disagree with him still respect him. Despite the fact that he kissed the ring of Jerry Falwell and the Evangelicals that threw him under the bus in 2000, who he called a bunch of lunatics.(1) Despite the fact that people working on his campaign are the same that accused him in 2000 of fathering an illegitimate black child.(2) Despite the fact that he too is an unapologetic power-hungry manipulator, who in 2001 courted the democratic party about switching parties before Jim Jeffords became an independent, making his potential switch irrelevant.(3) Then there's the fact that Republicans that oppose the war overwhelmingly favored John McCain, despite the fact that of the remaining candidates, he is the one that has most been in favor of the war, sometimes to a ridiculous degree. (4) I'll lay off a bit for now cuz I get the impression I'll be blogging against this guy for many of the summer months. But the point is that despite Mitt Romney's leaving the race meaning that the democrats will almost certainly go up against the stronger McCain, I am comforted that Mitt Romney will not be rewarded for selling every trace of his soul. Fuck you Mitt Romney, you got what you deserved.
* - Quote from Romney's speech made upon his announcement: "If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention … I’d forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I’d be making it easier for Sen. Clinton or Obama to win,” Romney said. “Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. - link
source 1
source 2
source 3
source 4
Fuckin' right Jon. It's been an interesting conflict in my mind lately. I wanted so much for Romney to succeed in the republican primaries. I happen to think that he's incredibly beatable in the general election. Yet at the same time I could hardly contain my contempt for that greasy, power-hungry son of a bitch. It amazes me the extent that he was able to fool conservative voters into believing in him. That flip-floppy cunt has spent his entire political career saying anything and everything to get ahead, and his supporters had the fucking gall to criticize Hillary Clinton for the same thing. Don't get me wrong, I think that it's also true about Hillary to a much, much lesser extent. But when I decide who I want to be president I decide who I think would be best for the country. There is no other criterion. In that respect I would give all worldly possessions I own or ever will own if it would ensure that Hillary Clinton would win a race against Mike Huckabee. While she is a calculating politician and he seems more unafraid to not compromise his principles, his principles are FUCKING INSANE and Hillary's "calculations" have landed on something that I often find myself in agreement with.
This doesn't mean that I want Hillary to be president. There is still something to be said about a candidate that both shares your values and had the backbone and principles to stand up for them, and for my money there hasn't been a candidate that better fits that mold since Al Gore. Until of course Obama came along. Sure Al Gore lost, but Obama also has the ability to not appear robot-like in person, so he's got that going for him.
Ok, I'm off point. I'll regroup. I fucking hate Romney. I could get into a giant protracted rant about what an asshole hypocrite he is, but with him dropping out of the race it isn't relevant any longer. I'll just say that the guy claimed he was the true conservative in this year's primaries, yet when he ran for governor of Massachusetts he claimed to be to the left of Ted Kennedy. What I want to address is the ridiculous statement that he made.* The part where he said that he doesn't want his campaign to be part of a surrender to terror. While he just said that so that he could further ingratiate himself with the conservative base that he figures he'll depend on for his next power-grab, I'm still sick of this particular attack on liberals. Fuck you Mitt Romney. Fuck you for exploiting people and turning them against their fellow Americans to advance your political career. Fuck you for implying that you, or conservatives you claim to think like, care about the future of this country any more than I do. Fuck you for claiming that I want anything good to ever happen to any of the damnable mother-fuckers that attack our troops, that terrorize innocent Iraqis, that take the lives of innocent civilians world-wide. Fuck you for basically equating MY ambitions to theirs. Fuck you for thinking that you deserve the respect that you have never done the hard work to earn. Fuck you even for taking advantage of conservatives, who you don't value any more than their potential to gain you more power. Fuck you for making us so angry at one another.
I don't want for the democrats to have to go up against John McCain in the general election. He can get the independent vote. People who disagree with him still respect him. Despite the fact that he kissed the ring of Jerry Falwell and the Evangelicals that threw him under the bus in 2000, who he called a bunch of lunatics.(1) Despite the fact that people working on his campaign are the same that accused him in 2000 of fathering an illegitimate black child.(2) Despite the fact that he too is an unapologetic power-hungry manipulator, who in 2001 courted the democratic party about switching parties before Jim Jeffords became an independent, making his potential switch irrelevant.(3) Then there's the fact that Republicans that oppose the war overwhelmingly favored John McCain, despite the fact that of the remaining candidates, he is the one that has most been in favor of the war, sometimes to a ridiculous degree. (4) I'll lay off a bit for now cuz I get the impression I'll be blogging against this guy for many of the summer months. But the point is that despite Mitt Romney's leaving the race meaning that the democrats will almost certainly go up against the stronger McCain, I am comforted that Mitt Romney will not be rewarded for selling every trace of his soul. Fuck you Mitt Romney, you got what you deserved.
* - Quote from Romney's speech made upon his announcement: "If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention … I’d forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I’d be making it easier for Sen. Clinton or Obama to win,” Romney said. “Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. - link
source 1
source 2
source 3
source 4
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Well, thanks for the wake-up call
I spent a few hours Monday night at the Obama headquarters helping the THRONGS of volunteers make last minute phone calls to get out the vote on Super Tuesday. As luck had it I ended up making calls to Kansas, which turned out to be a somewhat less than friendly state to someone calling and asking them to vote for Obama. I got some contentious calls, but for the most part even people that had no interest at all were very nice.
Tuesday morning I was supposed to be up VERY early to go vote before work. (I ended up having time after work, don't worry I'm not a hypocrite, not when it comes to politics at least.) Obviously I was sleeping late and had turned my alarm off. Luckily though I got a phone call about ten minutes before the last possible minute I could have left for work and still been close to on-time. I answered the phone to a southern-sounding "Is this Rich?" I couldn't figure out why a cowboy was calling me, but he went on. "You called me about Obama didn't you?" I had actually thought about how it was strange when I was doing calls that, making them from my phone, if someone tried to call back they would get me. Now it was happening. "I just wanted to say that I would never vote for Obama. I would never vote for ANY democrat. I'm a Christian and I don't support the killing of unborn babies. I'll be voting for Mike Huckabee and I just wanted you to know that!" Well, since I guess I should still try to be a representative of the Obama campaign I decided to just apologize try to get the hell off the phone, plus I wasn't woken up enough to think of anything clever. I think my politeness a bit disarmed him as he stopped yelling as much and only was able to mutter something about hell before I hung up.
Ten minutes later I thought about calling him back in order to thank him for waking me up in time for work.
Tuesday morning I was supposed to be up VERY early to go vote before work. (I ended up having time after work, don't worry I'm not a hypocrite, not when it comes to politics at least.) Obviously I was sleeping late and had turned my alarm off. Luckily though I got a phone call about ten minutes before the last possible minute I could have left for work and still been close to on-time. I answered the phone to a southern-sounding "Is this Rich?" I couldn't figure out why a cowboy was calling me, but he went on. "You called me about Obama didn't you?" I had actually thought about how it was strange when I was doing calls that, making them from my phone, if someone tried to call back they would get me. Now it was happening. "I just wanted to say that I would never vote for Obama. I would never vote for ANY democrat. I'm a Christian and I don't support the killing of unborn babies. I'll be voting for Mike Huckabee and I just wanted you to know that!" Well, since I guess I should still try to be a representative of the Obama campaign I decided to just apologize try to get the hell off the phone, plus I wasn't woken up enough to think of anything clever. I think my politeness a bit disarmed him as he stopped yelling as much and only was able to mutter something about hell before I hung up.
Ten minutes later I thought about calling him back in order to thank him for waking me up in time for work.
Wait, what?
This post covers the democratic side of the race, if I can get through it without feeling too nauseous, I'll do a write-up of the republican side as well.
So the only thing that was really decided last night on super Tuesday is that nothing will be really decided for weeks and possibly months to come. So what does this mean for the candidates? Well somewhat surprisingly, the man who may have come out of super Tuesday with the most improved position may be John Edwards.
After a poorer than expected showing in South Carolina senator Edwards dropped out of the democratic primaries. With Obama gaining momentum and Clinton holding steady, his chances of winning the nomination outright had been whittled down to nothing. However, by not endorsing anyone in the race, he kept himself relevant to the discussion, since he still commands a lot of loyalty from a large segment of liberal democrats. It may be true that Obama picked up more voters when Edwards dropped out than Clinton did, but I can tell you from speaking to people on the phone during phone-banking for the Obama campaign that there are many democrats that were very upset at Edward's defeat. I believe there are a lot of voters out there who would not vote for either candidate in the primaries without a direct endorsement from senator Edwards. That is why it was a bit surprising that he decided not to endorse either candidate before super Tuesday, which it looked could decide the race or at least clearly indicate the direction of the momentum in the race.
Now that the race is clearly still wide open (I'll address who I think has the best chance in the next post), John Edwards's decision looks brilliant. First of all, by not endorsing either candidate he leaves himself open to a cabinet position in either administration. Where it gets really interesting though is if the race continues to be as tight as it currently is, and the possibility of a brokered convention arises.
First, a quick explanation of how the primary works and what a brokered convention means. You're probably aware if you've been watching election coverage that what's more important than winning states is how many delegates each candidate wins. The way the system works is that at the democratic convention a group of about 4000 people act as delegates who each cast their vote for the democratic party's nominee for president. In most primaries this is a formality since the clear winner emerges long before the convention. However, if the race is still tight going into the convention, then a brokered convention could occur, which is basically a huge horse-trading shit-storm in which the campaigns try desperately to win enough delegates to ensure their party's nomination. The reason this is important is because not all of the delegates are "elected" in the public primaries in each state. About 20% of the delegates are called "super-delegates" and are allowed to vote for whoever they want, regardless of the results of primary elections. For a list of the super-delegates in the democratic party see here:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
John Edwards of course still holds some delegates that he won during the earlier primaries. Also, he could potentially deliver a large amount of the super-delegates should he decide not to endorse anyone before a brokered convention occurs. This could end up making John Edwards the king maker in the race, letting him choose the eventual nominee. Even stranger, there's a chance that the democratic party could completely change course if party insiders decide that John Edwards would make a better candidate against whoever the republican nominee ends up being. There's a chance that they could end up making HIM the eventual nominee. Confused yet? So am I.
So what's more relevant after Super Tuesday is the race between Clinton and Obama, and the momentum of the Obama campaign vs. the stomping Clinton delivered in California. (Strange how that Maria Shriver endorsement had little effect, right?) I just happen to find it interesting that what I thought was a huge mistake by John Edwards ended up being one of the best decisions he's made so far in the campaign. Still, the possibility of a brokered convention is VERY small, and has never happened since the advent of the current primary system in the '50s, despite coming close a few times, notably in '88.
So while I enjoyed speculating about the possibilities ahead, I hope you may have learned something about our convoluted political system! Tomorrow I'll convince you though that Obama will be able to win the nomination outright over the next few months!
So the only thing that was really decided last night on super Tuesday is that nothing will be really decided for weeks and possibly months to come. So what does this mean for the candidates? Well somewhat surprisingly, the man who may have come out of super Tuesday with the most improved position may be John Edwards.
After a poorer than expected showing in South Carolina senator Edwards dropped out of the democratic primaries. With Obama gaining momentum and Clinton holding steady, his chances of winning the nomination outright had been whittled down to nothing. However, by not endorsing anyone in the race, he kept himself relevant to the discussion, since he still commands a lot of loyalty from a large segment of liberal democrats. It may be true that Obama picked up more voters when Edwards dropped out than Clinton did, but I can tell you from speaking to people on the phone during phone-banking for the Obama campaign that there are many democrats that were very upset at Edward's defeat. I believe there are a lot of voters out there who would not vote for either candidate in the primaries without a direct endorsement from senator Edwards. That is why it was a bit surprising that he decided not to endorse either candidate before super Tuesday, which it looked could decide the race or at least clearly indicate the direction of the momentum in the race.
Now that the race is clearly still wide open (I'll address who I think has the best chance in the next post), John Edwards's decision looks brilliant. First of all, by not endorsing either candidate he leaves himself open to a cabinet position in either administration. Where it gets really interesting though is if the race continues to be as tight as it currently is, and the possibility of a brokered convention arises.
First, a quick explanation of how the primary works and what a brokered convention means. You're probably aware if you've been watching election coverage that what's more important than winning states is how many delegates each candidate wins. The way the system works is that at the democratic convention a group of about 4000 people act as delegates who each cast their vote for the democratic party's nominee for president. In most primaries this is a formality since the clear winner emerges long before the convention. However, if the race is still tight going into the convention, then a brokered convention could occur, which is basically a huge horse-trading shit-storm in which the campaigns try desperately to win enough delegates to ensure their party's nomination. The reason this is important is because not all of the delegates are "elected" in the public primaries in each state. About 20% of the delegates are called "super-delegates" and are allowed to vote for whoever they want, regardless of the results of primary elections. For a list of the super-delegates in the democratic party see here:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
John Edwards of course still holds some delegates that he won during the earlier primaries. Also, he could potentially deliver a large amount of the super-delegates should he decide not to endorse anyone before a brokered convention occurs. This could end up making John Edwards the king maker in the race, letting him choose the eventual nominee. Even stranger, there's a chance that the democratic party could completely change course if party insiders decide that John Edwards would make a better candidate against whoever the republican nominee ends up being. There's a chance that they could end up making HIM the eventual nominee. Confused yet? So am I.
So what's more relevant after Super Tuesday is the race between Clinton and Obama, and the momentum of the Obama campaign vs. the stomping Clinton delivered in California. (Strange how that Maria Shriver endorsement had little effect, right?) I just happen to find it interesting that what I thought was a huge mistake by John Edwards ended up being one of the best decisions he's made so far in the campaign. Still, the possibility of a brokered convention is VERY small, and has never happened since the advent of the current primary system in the '50s, despite coming close a few times, notably in '88.
So while I enjoyed speculating about the possibilities ahead, I hope you may have learned something about our convoluted political system! Tomorrow I'll convince you though that Obama will be able to win the nomination outright over the next few months!
Monday, February 4, 2008
the urgency of now
From guest blogger Kevin Roos, since I've been too busy to tell you how to vote in the primary, I'm going to let him do it for you. This is from the e-mail he sent to me:
subj: the urgency of now
My friends (to steal a line from John McCain),
I'm sending this to anyone who I think might care. This fall, we'll all be trying to convince our friends, relatives, and acquaintances that another 4 years of a Republican in the White House would be disastrous for our country, and for the world. What has yet to be determined is whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will be the motivating force behind this effort.
Some of you may be supporting Obama, some of you may not be or may still be undecided, but I wanted to make sure all of you realize what is at stake in this election. There is a contrast to be made, in my opinion a very clear contrast, one which should not be brushed aside.
This fall, will we be supporting the candidate who had the judgment and principles to give the following speech prior to the invasion of Iraq (a MUST read if you haven't read it before)?
Or, will we be supporting the candidate who not only voted to give George Bush authorization to wage that war, but was stubbornly among the last of the Democrats to admit the war was a mistake?
This fall, will we be supporting the candidate who in 2006 (according to the National Journal's ranking's) voted more liberal than 87% of Senators on economic policy issues, and voted more liberal than 85% of Senators on foreign policy issues? (Obama)
Or, will we be supporting the candidate who in 2006 voted more liberal than 63% of Senators on economic policy issues, and voted more liberal than 62% of Senators on foreign policy issues? (Clinton)
Speaking as a progressive who was paying attention to both of their votes at the time, Obama always impressed me with his progressive votes, while Clinton not infrequently made me extremely angry.
Will we be supporting the candidate whose reputation has suffered the full extent of years of onslaught by right-wing talk radio, or will we be supporting someone fresh and new whose image can (and has been) shaped in a more positive fashion? You would be amazed how many people simply would never vote for Hillary and hate her with a passion, or how many Republicans have very positive views of Obama. And I've talked to LOTS of people over the last couple of months.
Will we be supporting a candidate whose exceptional oratory skills inspire a whole new generation of people to cast aside their cynicism for the political process, and work for the changes that are so desperately needed? Someone like JFK or Robert Kennedy, someone who exudes an aura of integrity and passion for righteous causes that is totally contagious? I have met so many people who have never been involved in politics before, and are working on Obama's campaign. People who are my age and have never voted before, but now they are working full time or part time for a political campaign. It really is a beautiful thing, and a candidate who can inspire that is extremely rare.
Will we be supporting a candidate who served on the board of Wal-Mart (which is not to disparage the other good things she has done especially child advocacy) and raked in the dough working for a corporate law firm on intellectual property and patent issues?
Or, will we be supporting a candidate who graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, could have done almost anything he wanted to and made tons of money, but instead went to Chicago to organize a voter registration drive, and work as a lawyer representing community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases?
So, to me, the choice is clear. If you're on board as far as supporting Obama at this point, here's the real reason I'm writing this. The next week will be the absolutely most critical time for Obama's campaign. This next week will mean as much as all the time prior, and all the time afterwards, because next Tuesday half of the entire country's delegates will be voted on. That means that if you've ever thought of contributing to something bigger than yourself, ever wanted to be part of what I really think could be a realignment of our nation's politics towards a progressive agenda, NOW is the time.
No matter where you live, you can find a way to help. Go to www.barackobama.com, click on your state, and click "find events". Even if it's just a couple hours this weekend, it's extremely important. I'll be at the Chicago headquarters a large portion of the weekend, and I'll be doing something on Tuesday either in Evanston or in Chicago, and I'd like as many people to join me as possible. But for those of you not in the Chicago area, there will be something in your area, I promise. And at the very least, make sure you discuss this with all friends of yours who will be voting.
Please, forward this to anyone you think might benefit from reading this. As Barack would say, "Yes. We. Can."
-Kevin
subj: the urgency of now
My friends (to steal a line from John McCain),
I'm sending this to anyone who I think might care. This fall, we'll all be trying to convince our friends, relatives, and acquaintances that another 4 years of a Republican in the White House would be disastrous for our country, and for the world. What has yet to be determined is whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will be the motivating force behind this effort.
Some of you may be supporting Obama, some of you may not be or may still be undecided, but I wanted to make sure all of you realize what is at stake in this election. There is a contrast to be made, in my opinion a very clear contrast, one which should not be brushed aside.
This fall, will we be supporting the candidate who had the judgment and principles to give the following speech prior to the invasion of Iraq (a MUST read if you haven't read it before)?
Or, will we be supporting the candidate who not only voted to give George Bush authorization to wage that war, but was stubbornly among the last of the Democrats to admit the war was a mistake?
This fall, will we be supporting the candidate who in 2006 (according to the National Journal's ranking's) voted more liberal than 87% of Senators on economic policy issues, and voted more liberal than 85% of Senators on foreign policy issues? (Obama)
Or, will we be supporting the candidate who in 2006 voted more liberal than 63% of Senators on economic policy issues, and voted more liberal than 62% of Senators on foreign policy issues? (Clinton)
Speaking as a progressive who was paying attention to both of their votes at the time, Obama always impressed me with his progressive votes, while Clinton not infrequently made me extremely angry.
Will we be supporting the candidate whose reputation has suffered the full extent of years of onslaught by right-wing talk radio, or will we be supporting someone fresh and new whose image can (and has been) shaped in a more positive fashion? You would be amazed how many people simply would never vote for Hillary and hate her with a passion, or how many Republicans have very positive views of Obama. And I've talked to LOTS of people over the last couple of months.
Will we be supporting a candidate whose exceptional oratory skills inspire a whole new generation of people to cast aside their cynicism for the political process, and work for the changes that are so desperately needed? Someone like JFK or Robert Kennedy, someone who exudes an aura of integrity and passion for righteous causes that is totally contagious? I have met so many people who have never been involved in politics before, and are working on Obama's campaign. People who are my age and have never voted before, but now they are working full time or part time for a political campaign. It really is a beautiful thing, and a candidate who can inspire that is extremely rare.
Will we be supporting a candidate who served on the board of Wal-Mart (which is not to disparage the other good things she has done especially child advocacy) and raked in the dough working for a corporate law firm on intellectual property and patent issues?
Or, will we be supporting a candidate who graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, could have done almost anything he wanted to and made tons of money, but instead went to Chicago to organize a voter registration drive, and work as a lawyer representing community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases?
So, to me, the choice is clear. If you're on board as far as supporting Obama at this point, here's the real reason I'm writing this. The next week will be the absolutely most critical time for Obama's campaign. This next week will mean as much as all the time prior, and all the time afterwards, because next Tuesday half of the entire country's delegates will be voted on. That means that if you've ever thought of contributing to something bigger than yourself, ever wanted to be part of what I really think could be a realignment of our nation's politics towards a progressive agenda, NOW is the time.
No matter where you live, you can find a way to help. Go to www.barackobama.com, click on your state, and click "find events". Even if it's just a couple hours this weekend, it's extremely important. I'll be at the Chicago headquarters a large portion of the weekend, and I'll be doing something on Tuesday either in Evanston or in Chicago, and I'd like as many people to join me as possible. But for those of you not in the Chicago area, there will be something in your area, I promise. And at the very least, make sure you discuss this with all friends of yours who will be voting.
Please, forward this to anyone you think might benefit from reading this. As Barack would say, "Yes. We. Can."
-Kevin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)